p.8 #1 · Giving up 5D II for NEX? My experience in Japan
My guess is that the 5DII and a C/Z 35/1.4 doesn't weigh that much more. Given that I actually get 35mm and the expected f1.4 DOF/bokeh/sharpness means more to me than the weight or size.
p.8 #2 · Giving up 5D II for NEX? My experience in Japan
pdmphoto wrote:
My guess is that the 5DII and a C/Z 35/1.4 doesn't weigh that much more. Given that I actually get 35mm and the expected f1.4 DOF/bokeh/sharpness means more to me than the weight or size.
CV 35/1.2 (490g) + NEX-5N with battery and card (269g) = 759g
C/Y 35/1.4 (600g) + 5D with battery (895g) = 1495g
the canon and c/y weigh twice as much, the difference is even larger if you use the new ZE rather than the old contax. to be fair i didn't include the weight of the adapter on either, but it is comparatively negligible.
the closest you can get on the NEX for dof and fov view would be the new sony/zeiss 24/1.8:
ZA 24/1.8 (224g) + NEX-5N with battery and card (269g) = 493g
so the canon weighs 3 times as much
or on the upcoming NEX-7:
ZA 24/1.8 (224g) + NEX-7 with battery (400g) = 624g
p.8 #5 · Giving up 5D II for NEX? My experience in Japan
pdmphoto wrote:
But I haven't seem a single shot with the NEX, even with the CV 35/1.2, that has wow'd me
No helping the oblivious 4x5 boys will say the same thing about your precious piggy. Never a dearth of snobbery in photography Meanwhile more than a few household names prefer their iphones.
p.8 #6 · Giving up 5D II for NEX? My experience in Japan
pdmphoto wrote:
But I haven't seem a single shot with the NEX, even with the CV 35/1.2, that has wow'd me
fair enough, i'm not trying to convince you that you should get a NEX. i know what i would choose for 95% of my pictures though simply because i don't want to deal with the extra bulk (really i could care less about weight).
also, i've never seen a single shot with the 5D and a lens that wasn't the zeiss 35/1.4, rokkor 58/1.2, or zeiss 21/2.8 that wowed me. i have seen shots with the rokkor 58/1.2 on the NEX that wowed me and i've only seen about 8 total shots with those 2 zeisses on the NEX. i guess lens signature means more to me than camera or format.
p.8 #11 · Giving up 5D II for NEX? My experience in Japan
I am not sure I understand what you mean with "SLR lenses", Paul. The Zeiss ZM is a rangefinder lens with Leica M mount. And both it and Leica R, while not the lightest rangefinder lenses, are much lighter than Zeiss ZEs.
p.8 #12 · Giving up 5D II for NEX? My experience in Japan
sebboh wrote:
CV 35/1.2 (490g) + NEX-5N with battery and card (269g) = 759g
C/Y 35/1.4 (600g) + 5D with battery (895g) = 1495g
the canon and c/y weigh twice as much, the difference is even larger if you use the new ZE rather than the old contax. to be fair i didn't include the weight of the adapter on either, but it is comparatively negligible.
the closest you can get on the NEX for dof and fov view would be the new sony/zeiss 24/1.8:
ZA 24/1.8 (224g) + NEX-5N with battery and card (269g) = 493g
so the canon weighs 3 times as much
or on the upcoming NEX-7:
ZA 24/1.8 (224g) + NEX-7 with battery (400g) = 624g
What is the point of comparing weight between two systems with so widely different DOF capabilities? Even after getting as close you can with the smaller sensor, you should for fairness compare with the equivalent. The fact that the larger sensor can give you more is no disadvantage, because if you are willing to give up some to get a weight reduction with a smaller camera, you can also do the same by getting a slower and longer lens with the larger camera.
NEX + 35 mm f/1.2 should be compared with 5DII + 50mm f/1.8
NEX + 24 mm f/1.8 should be compared with 5DII + 35 mm f/2.8
The weight advantage of a smaller system is significant only when you give up the ultimate wide aperture equivalent.
p.8 #13 · Giving up 5D II for NEX? My experience in Japan
philber wrote:
I am not sure I understand what you mean with "SLR lenses", Paul. The Zeiss ZM is a rangefinder lens with Leica M mount. And both it and Leica R, while not the lightest rangefinder lenses, are much lighter than Zeiss ZEs.
My bad. The ZM 18 is the only wide angle that looks decent on the NEX. Too bad it's a 28mm though...
p.8 #14 · Giving up 5D II for NEX? My experience in Japan
sebboh wrote:
fair enough, i'm not trying to convince you that you should get a NEX. i know what i would choose for 95% of my pictures though simply because i don't want to deal with the extra bulk (really i could care less about weight).
also, i've never seen a single shot with the 5D and a lens that wasn't the zeiss 35/1.4, rokkor 58/1.2, or zeiss 21/2.8 that wowed me. i have seen shots with the rokkor 58/1.2 on the NEX that wowed me and i've only seen about 8 total shots with those 2 zeisses on the NEX. i guess lens signature means more to me than camera or format....Show more →
p.8 #15 · Giving up 5D II for NEX? My experience in Japan
or on the upcoming NEX-7: ZA 24/1.8 (224g) + NEX-7 with battery (400g) = 624g still more than twice as much.
Canon 5DII 850g (with battery) +40/2 = 1050g
I’m not really sure there is much of an advantage. The 5D has the optical viewfinder and even the humble 40/2 has shallower depth of field. Once you are using the thing (as opposed to just carrying it) it is an ergonomic delight.
As you say, the weight doesn’t really bother me either, it’s just the bulk. The 5D in this combination is quite nice – a smooth brick, with a small bump – slides into a quite small bag very easily, with no awkward protuberances. From what I see of the Nex 7 with the 24/1.8 Zeiss, which does interest me, it is a rather awkward looking shape. The real advantage would come if Zeiss made a 24/2 for this in the mould of Panasonic’s wonderful 20/2. That would be a very big difference!
p.8 #17 · Giving up 5D II for NEX? My experience in Japan
alundeb wrote:
What is the point of comparing weight between two systems with so widely different DOF capabilities? Even after getting as close you can with the smaller sensor, you should for fairness compare with the equivalent. The fact that the larger sensor can give you more is no disadvantage, because if you are willing to give up some to get a weight reduction with a smaller camera, you can also do the same by getting a slower and longer lens with the larger camera.
NEX + 35 mm f/1.2 should be compared with 5DII + 50mm f/1.8
NEX + 24 mm f/1.8 should be compared with 5DII + 35 mm f/2.8
The weight advantage of a smaller system is significant only when you give up the ultimate wide aperture equivalent. ...Show more →
no, the weight advantage is still nearly 2:1 in the NEX's favor, but i was just doing the suggested comparison, not claiming they produced equivalent dof.
wolfloid wrote:
Canon 5DII 850g (with battery) +40/2 = 1050g
I’m not really sure there is much of an advantage. The 5D has the optical viewfinder and even the humble 40/2 has shallower depth of field. Once you are using the thing (as opposed to just carrying it) it is an ergonomic delight.
As you say, the weight doesn’t really bother me either, it’s just the bulk. The 5D in this combination is quite nice – a smooth brick, with a small bump – slides into a quite small bag very easily, with no awkward protuberances. From what I see of the Nex 7 with the 24/1.8 Zeiss, which does interest me, it is a rather awkward looking shape. The real advantage would come if Zeiss made a 24/2 for this in the mould of Panasonic’s wonderful 20/2. That would be a very big difference! ...Show more →
ergonomic delight is a matter of opinion, the camera is still unnecessarily large, i always thought the 5D was an ergonomic disaster. the optical viewfinder not much of an advantage, it's the worst of any FF digital. i'd much prefer a decent evf or the viewfinder and ergonomics of any decent film slr.
to be fair the NEX-5 is also an ergonomic disaster, but just like 5D if you only use it for a while you get used to it. it seems possible that the NEX-7 will be much better than either camera ergonomically, but it's hard to say at this point.
p.8 #20 · Giving up 5D II for NEX? My experience in Japan
pdmphoto wrote:
But I haven't seem a single shot with the NEX, even with the CV 35/1.2, that has wow'd me
I'm not sure I've ever seen a picture where I thought, "If only this shot had one stop shallower depth of field, it would have been successful." In fact, I'd usually stop down my lenses to f2 on my fullframe DSLRs, so shooting fast rangefinder glass wide open on NEX made the transition relatively unnoticeable.
NEX with rangefinder glass gives you a setup about the same size as a m4/3 setup, but it splits the DOF (and IQ) difference between m4/3 and 135 DSLR, and that's what makes it such an appealing compromise to many of us. I just haven't seen a single shot that I've taken with a nex camera that would have been dramatically more successful with my A900, personally. I have taken shots with nex that would have never been taken in the first place with my A900, because the larger camera would have been at home.
Meanwhile more than a few household names prefer their iphones.
